Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#4411 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:10 PM

If the season ended due to desertification I can guarantee you the PA would want to get rid of the cap


yeah i would love to be a bug on the wall if that happens and the NHL wanted to get rid of guaranteed contracts and the PA the cap. would be like the apocalypse.
  • 0

#4412 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:11 PM

*
POPULAR

I think everything has gone according to Bettman's playbook up until today. He always planned on giving nothing to the players until Dec 1 and counted on them compromising right up until then. That way he begins negotiating on Dec 1 against a player position that is far closer to their own, allowing them to give less in the end.

They knew when the players started missing paycheques, this would cause them to compromise. They also know that in many markets the NHL doesn't make very much money in October and November as compared to the later months and certainly the playoffs. In short, they lose less than the players by forgoing the first 2 months. The players miss a third of their salary, but the owners only miss a fifth or sixth of their revenue.

They figured once Dec 1 rolled around, the players would be ripe for compromise and would be anxious to deal.

What happened here is that Fehr slowed down the process, knowing that we are entering waters that the owners do not care to be in (missing games deep into December and January). He now has the NHL in a more precarious position, much like the players were in for the last 3 months.

It is now Fehr's turn to grind the NHL and see what HE can get from THEM. This was not a part of Bettman's playbook and now he is extremely unhappy.

IMHO
  • 8
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#4413 Dasein

Dasein

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:12 PM

Jason Botchford just made one hell of a point on twitter


Garrison still would get 5. Security is security. Teams will still want to sign their core players to maximum years. And that means most guys in any team's top 4 with as much talent as Garrison will get 4-5 years.

There will hardly be any trickle down effect - it's just ridiculously long contracts like Weber, Luongo, Crosby, Hossa, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, etc will be cut down to 5.

EDIT: By getting cut down to 5, I mean that any future UFAS who have the potential to have signed a 10+ year deal like Crosby, Ovechkin, Weber, etc (ie, Seguin, Hall, Pietrangelo, etc) will be forced to cut down to 5 instead. I'm not saying that the current existing contracts will be violated and reduced to five years.

Edited by Dasein, 06 December 2012 - 09:26 PM.

  • 2

Athletes today are scared to make Muhammad Ali Statements.


#4414 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,315 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:14 PM

Scratch that post

Edited by Steven Stamkos' Mullet, 06 December 2012 - 09:25 PM.

  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#4415 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:17 PM

Garrison still would get 5. Security is security. Teams will still want to sign their core players to maximum years. And that means most guys in any team's top 4 with as much talent as Garrison will get 4-5 years.

There will hardly be any trickle down effect - it's just ridiculously long contracts like Weber, Luongo, Crosby, Hossa, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, etc will be cut down to 5.


Those contracts won't stand, contracts that are already signed will remain. it will just be for future contracts.
  • 1

zackass.png


#4416 Dasein

Dasein

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:21 PM

Those contracts won't stand, contracts that are already signed will remain. it will just be for future contracts.


I know, that's what I'm saying. If Weber hadn't signed this year and had to sign a 5 year deal next year, and if Garrison had to sign a deal next year, there won't be a trickle down effect where since Weber is signed for 5 years, teams won't sign guys like Garrison at the same length, but 3-4 years. He'll still get 5 because he's worth it, and it'll just eliminate ridiculously long contracts from getting signed. There's almost no trickle down at all.

Basically, Botchford is being an idiot as usual is what I was getting at.

Edited by Dasein, 06 December 2012 - 09:24 PM.

  • 0

Athletes today are scared to make Muhammad Ali Statements.


#4417 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:27 PM

I know, that's what I'm saying. If Weber hadn't signed this year and had to sign a 5 year deal next year, and if Garrison had to sign a deal next year, there won't be a trickle down effect where since Weber is signed for 5 years, teams won't sign guys like Garrison at the same length, but 3-4 years. He'll still get 5 because he's worth it, and it'll just eliminate ridiculously long contracts from getting signed. There's almost no trickle down at all.

Basically, Botchford is being an idiot as usual is what I was getting at.


After reading Mullet's response I think we both (me and him) took it the wrong way.

I agree I think Garrison would still get 5 years in that scenerio aswell.
  • 0

zackass.png


#4418 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:27 PM

Jason Botchford just made one hell of a point on twitter

Botchford should spend some time finding out the details of the offer first.

It's not 5 years it's 7 years that Weber would have signed for if he chose to remain with Preds. Same for Garrison. If they both decided to leave as UFA then Garrison would still have gotten 5 years.
  • 0

#4419 Get real canuck fans

Get real canuck fans

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:33 PM

I think Mr Fehr has royally screwed up.
He knew damn well that even the moderate owners were royally pissed off and when he comes out and leads all the fans to believe he thinks the owners are likely going to accept the PA's counter proposal he was outright bullchitting and playing on the fans emotions.
I think Fehr has now galvanized the moderates to the hawk owners side and the owners are now daring the PA to take decertification to their members.

Edited by Get real canuck fans, 06 December 2012 - 09:34 PM.

  • 1

#4420 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:34 PM

Garrison still would get 5. Security is security. Teams will still want to sign their core players to maximum years. And that means most guys in any team's top 4 with as much talent as Garrison will get 4-5 years.

There will hardly be any trickle down effect - it's just ridiculously long contracts like Weber, Luongo, Crosby, Hossa, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, etc will be cut down to 5.

EDIT: By getting cut down to 5, I mean that any future UFAS who have the potential to have signed a 10+ year deal like Crosby, Ovechkin, Weber, etc (ie, Seguin, Hall, Pietrangelo, etc) will be forced to cut down to 5 instead. I'm not saying that the current existing contracts will be violated and reduced to five years.


just a quick correction Dassein. All the players you mentioned like Crosby, Weber, OV, Luongo, Kovy re-signed with their previous teams. If they signed during the new CBA they would get up to 7 year deals. If they chose to leave their teams as UFA to go play for different team then they would get max 5 years, ie Ehrhoff.

I love this idea. For small market teams it will be a bit easier to keep their home grown talent by being able to offer longer term. This is good for EDM, WPG, OTT. Creates more parity in the league. I like this idea.

And this won't affect existing contracts. Crosby's contract won't be cut down.

Edited by WHL rocks, 06 December 2012 - 09:37 PM.

  • 2

#4421 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,947 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:35 PM

JAH be right 'mon. JAH know it.
  • 1

#4422 Dasein

Dasein

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:39 PM

just a quick correction Dassein. All the players you mentioned like Crosby, Weber, OV, Luongo, Kovy re-signed with their previous teams. If they signed during the new CBA they would get up to 7 year deals. If they chose to leave their teams as UFA to go play for different team then they would get max 5 years, ie Ehrhoff.

I love this idea. For small market teams it will be a bit easier to keep their home grown talent by being able to offer longer term. This is good for EDM, WOG, OTT. Creates more parity in the league. I like this idea.

And this won't affect existing contracts. Crosby's contract won't be cut down.


Oh really, that's interesting.

And yeah I definitely like that too since there's extra incentive for players to stay with their home teams like you said. I don't see why players wouldn't go for it then - since current contracts are honoured, there's the option of 7 years if you re-sign with the current team, and I don't think there's that "trickle-down effect" that Botchford is talking about when they implement a contract term limit ...
  • 0

Athletes today are scared to make Muhammad Ali Statements.


#4423 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:45 PM

Oh really, that's interesting.

And yeah I definitely like that too since there's extra incentive for players to stay with their home teams like you said. I don't see why players wouldn't go for it then - since current contracts are honoured, there's the option of 7 years if you re-sign with the current team, and I don't think there's that "trickle-down effect" that Botchford is talking about when they implement a contract term limit ...


exactly, I think this is a great idea. I completely agree with your point on trickle down affect. Garrison would have still gotten a 5 years deal under these new terms.

It would just put an end to life time contracts like some of the ones you mentioned in your post above. And gives players added incentive to stay with the teams that drafted and developed them.
  • 0

#4424 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:47 PM

I think Mr Fehr has royally screwed up.
He knew damn well that even the moderate owners were royally pissed off and when he comes out and leads all the fans to believe he thinks the owners are likely going to accept the PA's counter proposal he was outright bullchitting and playing on the fans emotions.
I think Fehr has now galvanized the moderates to the hawk owners side and the owners are now daring the PA to take decertification to their members.


Completely agree, particularly with the bold part.
  • 0

#4425 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:49 PM

So yeah...what was I saying about the 'O' word?




:lol: at all the drama here



Well said Jah....very interesting analysis...intrigued to see how that angle plays out
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#4426 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

We are 2 years apart on CBA length, and 3 Years apart on Max contract lengths.

Gary over dramatized everything, they just need to step back and cool down.

We are really not that far apart.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 06 December 2012 - 09:51 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#4427 Dasein

Dasein

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

And the more I read, it really sounds like Fehr royally screwed up this whole process ...

This was the deal ... This was the best that they were going to get ... and he didn't even vote on it.

I mean, the league agrees to move make-whole up to $300mil which was exactly half way from NHL and NHLPA's differences, agreed not to touch UFA eligibility, but decided to stay hard on the contract limits and CBA length ... That's 2 out of 4 on the major rifts, man (and considering what WHL Rocks said, I would say the NHL's proposal was reasonable on the contract limits) ... Most would call that good bargaining and compromising at the middle ...

He overplayed his hand and went for the win, hoping for the ace, when he could have broken even with the push at 20.

Busted.

Edited by Dasein, 06 December 2012 - 09:54 PM.

  • 0

Athletes today are scared to make Muhammad Ali Statements.


#4428 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

The PA has already proposed to come down to max 8 year contracts. I think the owners have made huge gains in contracting rights already. When you see what's been going on with contracts like Weber's this is a huge improvement. Weber gets $26 million guaranteed over the first year of 14 year contract. With owners sticking to 5% variance and PA already coming to 25% form highest year to lowest this is already good gain.

Owners are going to get a big win on this if there is more movement in the owners direction. From what it looks like i don't see there not being more movement. Especially when Daly goes on TV and says this is the hill we die on.
  • 0

#4429 Xbox

Xbox

    Formerly Lups

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,713 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:55 PM

Fehr is an idiot......

Bettman is just pissed because his job is on the line. Daly looked a lot more calm and relaxed
  • 0

2yo50sh.jpg

small.pngGM - STHS                                  Sig Cred to -Vintage Canuck-

 

 


#4430 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:59 PM

yes they would have the revenue, they would also have the incurred cost, and then the MASSIVE backlash that MLB got from its fans.


Yes, they would have gotten the cost and the revenue. Now, they have almost none of the revenue but still have some of the costs (i.e. injured players, all other employees, arena costs, etc.) Still sound smart to you?

I don't get people saying the players are being shortsighted for fighting for their right to control their own careers as it significantly impacts their lives and families because they will lose more money than they will ever make up, but these same people don't see owners losing billions just so they can make demands even they've admitted don't have a direct effect on the bottom line. They're cutting off their noses to spite their own faces.

And do you have any proof that the backlash would have been any more, much less significantly more, than what they will face now? If not, that's not an argument. It's mere speculation based on a theoretical idea that the PA may have done something and that may have resulted in a situation worse than the damage the owners are actually causing by what they are actually doing. It's silly to get mad at the PA for something they might have but never actually did. That's a marriage fight and it has no place in sports.

Do you know how robbed we would have felt if the NHL went on strike at playoff time in 2010 with the canucks in first place? most of us would never be back. you cannot take that risk for any amount of money as a league.


From a business perspective, it's better to piss off some of your customers rather than all of them.

Now: All hockey fans are pissed off and denied the game they love.

A playoff strike: Some hockey fans are royally pissed off and denied the game they love.

But in reality, the NHL doesn't care. They've already told us point blank they don't think we're going anywhere. They can do anything they want and not face any real consequences. So, keep lying to yourself that the NHL had your feelings in mind when they decided to lockout players if it helps you sleep at night. Ignorance is bliss.

In the morning, though, the facts will remain as they are: The NHL locked out players so they wouldn't get paid, hoping to put the screws on them as they started missing paydays. That makes their tactic at least as bad as a player playoff strike. The big difference? Players don't get paid for the playoffs, but owners make big profits from them. So, if the players went on strike during the playoffs they would be giving up playing for the Cup, their ultimate career goal, while the owners would be denied their huge playoff profits. With the owners' lockout, as you pointed out, owners are giving up revenue but also avoiding costs. But, with a playoff strike they wouldn't get to miss any costs, just profits. So, they don't care if you or I would be devastated our team didn't get to go for the Cup. They made the selfish choice to lockout players now because they would be devastated if their pure lockout profit were to be taken away later.

without a single bit of proof? fehr did it what twice in MLB? yeah the writing was on the wall why do you think fehr kept saying its an owners lockout and "we can keep playing anytime". not rocket science,


Not true! It was actually one owners' lockout and one players' strike.

In addition to helping the union win 3 lawsuits against the MLB owners for collusion,

Fehr also guided the players through a 32-day lockout by owners in the spring of 1990 and a 232-day strike in 1994-95 in which players stuck together to fight off an attempt by owners to break their union and implement cuts in pay and benefits. Owners went so far as to even try dressing replacement players, but still the union would not bend. It was perhaps the greatest show of union solidarity in modern sports history.

After work stoppages in each of the eight rounds of bargaining between 1972 through 1995, the next round of bargaining, in 2002, brought a contract without a strike or lockout and the same was true for the agreement reached in 2006. That was Fehr's final contract negotiation as executive director and it ensured 16 years of labor peace in baseball.

Fehr also played an important part in spreading the popularity of baseball beyond North America, including efforts to help create and develop the World Baseball Classic, the sport's first World Cup-styled international tournament featuring active Major Leaguers.

Source: http://mlbplayers.ml...nfo/history.jsp

So, let's review. Fehr helped strengthen the union, helped create a strong, largely harmonious league, and helped promote the sport in general. Yeah, it would be really terrible if he were allowed to do anything like that to the NHL.

Edited by poetica, 06 December 2012 - 10:02 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#4431 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,946 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:17 PM

Settle down...lol with the stunt Fehr pulled today in the PR its funny that you are still siding with him...so bold to say things are great take a voice mail come back and dump on the NHL. What kind of negiator is such a player of head games. He's no negotiator he's a manipulator. Give your head a shake. lol

http://ca.sports.yah...35567--nhl.html
  • 0

#4432 frazzY

frazzY

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,390 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:17 PM

MLB has had almost 20 years of labour peace and booming revenues and salaries under the system Fehr fought for. The idea that he screwed up MLB is just categorically wrong.


True, u are right.

But ive read a lot about him lately and he was definitely not liked by the majority. Just cause the MLB is successful doesnt mean he wasnt a cancer.
  • 0

#4433 nowhereman

nowhereman

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,035 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 06

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:26 PM

You sir are brilliant.

These are things the common people look past, the fact that NHL has backed off demands, rather than actually giving anything.

The pure simple fact of this lockout, is that by the end of it the Owner's will have given nothing, and the players will have made massive concessions, both moneywise and otherwise. more so than they already have it seems.

That's the fact behind all of this.

The old CBA has come and gone. How much are the players really giving, when they're asking to be made whole for the phasing in of the 50/50 "agreement"? They keep talking about the contracting rights they've "earned" and their dislike of the the "5% variance rule", even though those are elements of the last CBA.

Negotiations start off proposals, not old colllective bargaining agreements.

Edited by nowhereman, 06 December 2012 - 10:29 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#4434 The-Impersonator

The-Impersonator

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,727 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 03

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:29 PM

Botchford should spend some time finding out the details of the offer first.

It's not 5 years it's 7 years that Weber would have signed for if he chose to remain with Preds. Same for Garrison. If they both decided to leave as UFA then Garrison would still have gotten 5 years.

Botchford should spend some time finding out the details of the offer first.

It's not 5 years it's 7 years that Weber would have signed for if he chose to remain with Preds. Same for Garrison. If they both decided to leave as UFA then Garrison would still have gotten 5 years.


Botchford is too dumb to even tie his own shoes.
  • 0

#4435 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:30 PM

The old CBA has come and gone. How much are the players really giving, when they're asking to be made whole for the phasing in of the 50/50 "agreement"? They keep talking about the contracting rights they've "earned" and their dislike of the the "5% variance rule".

Negotiations start off proposals, not old colllective bargaining agreements.


Well either side is negotiating off there own proposals, it should go off the previous CBA.

If there is one thing I learned in History 12 it is that you have to listen to history, or else you will make the same mistakes.

If the NHL had negotiated off the old CBA, we wouldn't have made this personal or went down this propaganda road. This never should have happened, it's just ridiculous.
  • 0

zackass.png


#4436 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,212 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:31 PM

Botchford is too dumb to even tie his own shoes.


Yeah him thinking Edmonton was a legit trade partner was another thing he said that was stupid.

I agree most the time he over dramatizes things or else he doesn't know what he is talking about.
  • 0

zackass.png


#4437 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:33 PM

Settle down...lol with the stunt Fehr pulled today in the PR its funny that you are still siding with him...so bold to say things are great take a voice mail come back and dump on the NHL. What kind of negiator is such a player of head games. He's no negotiator he's a manipulator. Give your head a shake. lol

http://ca.sports.yah...35567--nhl.html


Manipulator is a great word for this guy. I don't know how ppl have not been able to see this guy for what he is for the past three months. Finally he's been exposed. The whole hockey community is turning on him, even some players questioned him why they didn't vote on the latest proposal

From all reports, things were progressing well until PA came back and said we want Fehr back in the room. This egomaniac couldn't stand the fact the 2 sides were close to an agreement. He demanded to be let back in the room and promptly destroyed everything the two sides had accomplished over the week.
  • 1

#4438 Get real canuck fans

Get real canuck fans

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:39 PM

Yes, they would have gotten the cost and the revenue. Now, they have almost none of the revenue but still have some of the costs (i.e. injured players, all other employees, arena costs, etc.) Still sound smart to you?

I don't get people saying the players are being shortsighted for fighting for their right to control their own careers as it significantly impacts their lives and families because they will lose more money than they will ever make up, but these same people don't see owners losing billions just so they can make demands even they've admitted don't have a direct effect on the bottom line. They're cutting off their noses to spite their own faces.

And do you have any proof that the backlash would have been any more, much less significantly more, than what they will face now? If not, that's not an argument. It's mere speculation based on a theoretical idea that the PA may have done something and that may have resulted in a situation worse than the damage the owners are actually causing by what they are actually doing. It's silly to get mad at the PA for something they might have but never actually did. That's a marriage fight and it has no place in sports.



From a business perspective, it's better to piss off some of your customers rather than all of them.

Now: All hockey fans are pissed off and denied the game they love.

A playoff strike: Some hockey fans are royally pissed off and denied the game they love.

But in reality, the NHL doesn't care. They've already told us point blank they don't think we're going anywhere. They can do anything they want and not face any real consequences. So, keep lying to yourself that the NHL had your feelings in mind when they decided to lockout players if it helps you sleep at night. Ignorance is bliss.

In the morning, though, the facts will remain as they are: The NHL locked out players so they wouldn't get paid, hoping to put the screws on them as they started missing paydays. That makes their tactic at least as bad as a player playoff strike. The big difference? Players don't get paid for the playoffs, but owners make big profits from them. So, if the players went on strike during the playoffs they would be giving up playing for the Cup, their ultimate career goal, while the owners would be denied their huge playoff profits. With the owners' lockout, as you pointed out, owners are giving up revenue but also avoiding costs. But, with a playoff strike they wouldn't get to miss any costs, just profits. So, they don't care if you or I would be devastated our team didn't get to go for the Cup. They made the selfish choice to lockout players now because they would be devastated if their pure lockout profit were to be taken away later.



Not true! It was actually one owners' lockout and one players' strike.

In addition to helping the union win 3 lawsuits against the MLB owners for collusion,

Source: http://mlbplayers.ml...nfo/history.jsp

So, let's review. Fehr helped strengthen the union, helped create a strong, largely harmonious league, and helped promote the sport in general. Yeah, it would be really terrible if he were allowed to do anything like that to the NHL.


ya,,ask Expos fans how well it worked for them.
Many think MLB has never recovered from strike of 1994
Who wants to be like baseball? Some teams with the 200 mill payrolls and some at 50.
  • 1

#4439 Get real canuck fans

Get real canuck fans

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:41 PM

Yes, they would have gotten the cost and the revenue. Now, they have almost none of the revenue but still have some of the costs (i.e. injured players, all other employees, arena costs, etc.) Still sound smart to you?

I don't get people saying the players are being shortsighted for fighting for their right to control their own careers as it significantly impacts their lives and families because they will lose more money than they will ever make up, but these same people don't see owners losing billions just so they can make demands even they've admitted don't have a direct effect on the bottom line. They're cutting off their noses to spite their own faces.

And do you have any proof that the backlash would have been any more, much less significantly more, than what they will face now? If not, that's not an argument. It's mere speculation based on a theoretical idea that the PA may have done something and that may have resulted in a situation worse than the damage the owners are actually causing by what they are actually doing. It's silly to get mad at the PA for something they might have but never actually did. That's a marriage fight and it has no place in sports.



From a business perspective, it's better to piss off some of your customers rather than all of them.

Now: All hockey fans are pissed off and denied the game they love.

A playoff strike: Some hockey fans are royally pissed off and denied the game they love.

But in reality, the NHL doesn't care. They've already told us point blank they don't think we're going anywhere. They can do anything they want and not face any real consequences. So, keep lying to yourself that the NHL had your feelings in mind when they decided to lockout players if it helps you sleep at night. Ignorance is bliss.

In the morning, though, the facts will remain as they are: The NHL locked out players so they wouldn't get paid, hoping to put the screws on them as they started missing paydays. That makes their tactic at least as bad as a player playoff strike. The big difference? Players don't get paid for the playoffs, but owners make big profits from them. So, if the players went on strike during the playoffs they would be giving up playing for the Cup, their ultimate career goal, while the owners would be denied their huge playoff profits. With the owners' lockout, as you pointed out, owners are giving up revenue but also avoiding costs. But, with a playoff strike they wouldn't get to miss any costs, just profits. So, they don't care if you or I would be devastated our team didn't get to go for the Cup. They made the selfish choice to lockout players now because they would be devastated if their pure lockout profit were to be taken away later.



Not true! It was actually one owners' lockout and one players' strike.

In addition to helping the union win 3 lawsuits against the MLB owners for collusion,

Source: http://mlbplayers.ml...nfo/history.jsp

So, let's review. Fehr helped strengthen the union, helped create a strong, largely harmonious league, and helped promote the sport in general. Yeah, it would be really terrible if he were allowed to do anything like that to the NHL.

ya,,ask Expos fans how well it worked for them.
Many think MLB has never recovered from strike of 1994
Who wants to be like baseball? Some teams with the 200 mill payrolls and some at 50.

Edited by Get real canuck fans, 06 December 2012 - 10:43 PM.

  • 1

#4440 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:50 PM

Botchford is too dumb to even tie his own shoes.


lol
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.